Disposed

Sadhana and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2019HABC/276/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition filed by an adult daughter's mother, the Court ascertained that the daughter had voluntarily left home, married, and did not require protection. The Court disposed of the petition granting liberty to approach police for security if needed and issued directions for the transfer of identity documents from the father to the daughter through Court officers.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach police for protection if needed; direction to court officer to collect documents from petitioner 1 and make them available to the corpus.

Sadhana and Another Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 276 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sadhana And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Roshan Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manjari Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

We have heard Sri Roshan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner no.1 (Smt. Sadhana); Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the respondents no.1 to 4; and Mrs. Manjari Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

¶6

Ashu (petitioner no.2) as well as Smt. Sadhana (petitioner no.1) are also present before the Court in person. Sri Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of petitioner no.2.

¶7

This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner no.1 (Smt. Sadhana) for seeking a direction upon the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 to rescue the corpus from illegal custody of respondent no.5 and for her production before the Court. The allegations made were that the respondent no.5 had illegally interfered in the personal life of the petitioners and had forcibly taken away the corpus (petitioner no.2) and had detained her somewhere and, thereafter, the corpus was not traceable.

¶8

On the aforesaid allegations, notices were issued to the respondents. Returns were filed which disclosed that the corpus (petitioner no.2) had made a complaint to the National Women Commission, New Delhi as regards her harassment by her family members, in connection with which she, on her own asking, was accorded protection at Bapnu Ghar, New Delhi from where she had left to unknown destination of her own freewill.

¶9

As the corpus was not traceable, this Court had required the State Authorities to make necessary inquiry as regards the current location of the corpus and whether she was safe.

¶10

Today, the corpus has herself appeared before the Court and has made a statement that she has married one Deepak Singh and she is living happily with him and no force of any kind has been used upon her. She states that she is an adult and she can take her own decision. She states that she has appeared before the Court voluntarily with a view to inform the Court that she does

¶11

not require any interference from any quarters in her private life.

¶12

The petitioner no.1 has identified the corpus as her daughter and admits that the corpus is adult.

¶13

The corpus has expressed apprehensions as regards her safety, though she has not complained of any instance in which her safety or security was at peril. She, however, requested the Court that she should be given liberty to request for security in case she needs it.

¶14

We have inquired from the petitioner no.1 whether she would respect the decision of the petitioner no.2 to lead her own independent life. The petitioner no.1 stated that she understands that the petitioner no.2 is an adult and has a right to take her own decision in respect of her private life and therefore she would have no concern with her and would not interfere in the private life of the petitioner no.2 (the corpus) but she has expressed her worry as regards future safety and security of the corpus.

¶15

We inquired from the corpus whether she would like to disclose her present address. She has specifically requested that her present address should not be disclosed and that she should be given liberty to approach the authority concerned without disclosing the address to her parents.

¶16

The corpus has also clarified that the National Women Commission, New Delhi has not harassed her in any manner and it was she, who had called for their help, and, upon her request, they had provided help and had come to her rescue when she had a threat perception from her own family members.

¶17

In view of the above, no further action is required to be taken in this habeas corpus petition. We dispose off this petition by giving liberty to the corpus (Ashu Vashisht) to approach the police authority concerned to seek protection, if required. In case the corpus approaches the authority concerned including Commissioner of Police, Delhi, it is expected that they shall accord consideration to her request and if they find that she has a genuine threat perception, then they shall provide such protection, as may be considered necessary.

¶18

There is no order as to costs.

¶19

At this stage, the petitioner no.2 has stated that all her educational certificates as well as identity documents are with

¶20

her parents and she would be requiring the same and, therefore, a direction be issued to her parents to provide all those certificates to her.

¶21

The petitioner no.1 stated that she would have no objection in handing over the certificates, if they are in her possession, to the corpus or to any of her representative and, therefore, she may be permitted to collect those certificates from her within two weeks from today.

¶22

As the corpus is not willing to go to her parents' house, we deem it appropriate to provide that C.O. (City), Ghaziabad shall collect the necessary documents from the petitioner no.1 and shall keep the same to enable the petitioner no.2 to collect those documents from him.

¶23

The petition stands disposed off.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.9.2019 Anand Sri./-

Sadhana and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhana and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vachan Singh Vs State

Her Tam Vs State

Tursi and Others Vs State of U.P.

Veer Singh Vs State

Suresh Mani Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Adil Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others